Evidence of meeting #27 for National Defence in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was allies.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
I'm asking for your view. That's why you're here as a witness.
Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa
My view is that the current level of spending is sufficient, provided that we undertake a serious consideration of smart defence, and that we work with our allies. I don't believe.... As a number of you in the room know, we are not going to be spending all that much more on defence in the next coming years. If anything, the department may actually take a cut. I understand that it's in Canada's national interest to do so, because we need to ensure that our federal fiscal house is in order.
Therefore, knowing this, I don't find it's at all useful to encourage government to spend more on defence when you have 50 other people encouraging the government to spend on their particular interest—health, education, old age security. Everybody wants a piece of the pie. If we know that our slice is going to stay where it is, we need to be realistic about what we can actually afford with that slice. That's my position.
If the government had a much more ambitious policy and really wanted to do more, then it should spend more. Right now, this government is indicating that it's not going to spend more.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
What you're saying is that it's very urgent to make choices.
Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa
Absolutely.
Conservative
Chris Alexander Conservative Ajax—Pickering, ON
For naval capacity, I heard two suggestions from you. One was that we focus on a given region, the western hemisphere or the Arctic, but then in an answer to another question, you suggested that the greatest threat to our way of life and our economy might be key sea lanes, the Straits of Hormuz, etc.
Those are potentially vastly different kinds of investment. Where do you come down on the navy? Do we need service combatants, or do we need specialized ships to look after the Arctic and the western hemisphere?
Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa
It's only a decision that can be made after discussing with our allies, because if the United States tells us that they will take care of the sea lanes, and that therefore it would be much more helpful for them, when they're doing that role, if we took care of the Arctic, then you're actually helping your own security by allowing your ally to undertake a mission while you do something else. It's a question of burden-sharing.
If the United States, on the contrary, says they don't really see all that great of a threat in the Arctic, but they need a Canadian naval presence off the Horn of Africa and in the Asian Pacific, which would be much more helpful, then that's the kind of policy you might want to pursue.
Those are two different options, but my point is simply that it's illusory to think that we can do both under current budgetary conditions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Thank you. Time has expired.
It's been a very interesting discussion.
Professor Lagassé, I appreciate your coming in today and sharing your ideas and providing input to the study.
We're not going to have another meeting until February 28. Everybody have a good break week back in your ridings.
With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.